- 14 -
Petitioners' motion is based on the theory that the notice
of deficiency issued to them was invalid, and, therefore, the
Court was never vested with jurisdiction to enter a decision in
the case.12
The Court's jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency is
dependent upon issuance of a valid notice of deficiency and a
timely filed petition. Rule 13(a), (c); Levitt v. Commissioner,
97 T.C. 437, 441 (1991); Monge v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 22, 27
(1989); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142, 147 (1988).
Section 6212(a) expressly authorizes the Commissioner, after
determining a deficiency, to send a notice of deficiency to the
taxpayer by certified or registered mail.
It is well settled that no particular form is required for a
statutory notice of deficiency. Jarvis v. Commissioner, 78 T.C.
646, 655 (1982).13 At a minimum, however, the notice must
12 There is no evidence in the record that the stipulated
decision entered in petitioners' case represents a fraud upon the
Court. See Abatti v. Commissioner, 859 F.2d 115, 118-119 (9th
Cir. 1988) (defining fraud upon the court as "an unconscionable
plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the
court in its decision" or a fraudulent act that "prevents the
opposing party from fully and fairly presenting his case"), affg.
86 T.C. 1319 (1986).
13 Sec. 7522(a), applicable to notices mailed on or after
January 1, 1990, provides in pertinent part that a notice of
deficiency
shall describe the basis for, and identify the amounts
(if any) of, the tax due, interest, additional amount,
additions to the tax, and assessable penalties included
in such notice. An inadequate description under the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011